The question arises repeatedly in barangay halls, prosecutors’ offices, and trial courts across the Philippines: Can the legal wife (or female intimate partner) file a case under Republic Act No. 9262 (Anti-VAWC Act) against her husband’s mistress?

The short, unequivocal, and final answer, as consistently upheld by the Supreme Court and uniformly applied by prosecutors and trial courts as of December 2025, is:

NO. The mistress cannot be held criminally liable under RA 9262, no matter how cruel, humiliating, or provocative her actions are toward the legal wife.

Below is the complete legal explanation, including the exact provisions, Supreme Court rulings, prosecutorial policy, and all available alternative remedies against the mistress.

1. The Scope of RA 9262 Is Strictly Limited by the Relationship Between Offender and Victim

Section 3(a) of RA 9262 defines “violence against women and their children” as:

“…any act or a series of acts committed by any person against a woman who is his wife, former wife, or against a woman with whom the person has or had a sexual or dating relationship, or with whom he has a common child, or against her child whether legitimate or illegitimate…”

The Supreme Court has repeatedly stressed that the existence of this qualifying relationship is jurisdictional — meaning, without it, the act, no matter how morally reprehensible, is not punishable under RA 9262.

Key Supreme Court decisions:

Dinamling v. People, G.R. No. 199522, June 22, 2015
Explicitly ruled that RA 9262 does not cover acts committed by the paramour/mistress against the legal wife because there is no sexual or dating relationship between the two women.
Melgar v. People, G.R. No. 223477, February 14, 2018
Reiterated that the offender must be the husband/intimate partner. Acts of the mistress, even if done in conspiracy with the husband, do not make her a principal by direct participation under RA 9262.
AAA v. BBB, G.R. No. 212448, January 11, 2018 (and its progeny)
The Court clarified that psychological violence through marital infidelity is punishable only when committed by the husband/partner, not by the third party.
People v. Genosa line of cases and subsequent rulings up to 2024–2025
The Court has never wavered: the mistress is outside the ambit of RA 9262.

The Department of Justice (DOJ) has issued circulars (most recently DOJ Circular No. 013, series of 2022, still in force in 2025) directing prosecutors to dismiss outright any VAWC complaint filed against the alleged mistress/paramour for lack of jurisdiction over the person of the accused.

2. Why Some Wives (and Even Some Lawyers) Think It Is Possible

Many wives file VAWC against the mistress because:

The mistress sends humiliating messages, posts photos online, or brags about the affair.
Some fiscal’s offices in the provinces initially accept the complaint (especially if joint with the husband).
A few trial courts (before 2018) convicted mistresses, but those convictions were invariably reversed on appeal.

All such convictions have been overturned. As of 2025, there is zero chance of a conviction against the mistress under RA 9262.

3. Correct Use of RA 9262: File It Against the Husband/Partner

The legal wife’s strongest weapon is actually RA 9262 — but against the erring husband.

Marital infidelity, keeping a mistress, flaunting the relationship, forcing the wife to see intimate photos, or bringing the mistress to the conjugal home are all considered psychological violence under Section 5(i) in relation to Section 3(a).

Proven cases that resulted in conviction or permanent protection orders:

Husband posting photos with mistress on social media → convicted (People v. Del Poso, 2020)
Husband forcing wife to talk to mistress on the phone → permanent protection order granted
Husband living with mistress while denying support to legal family → economic abuse + psychological violence

Penalty: imprisonment of up to 12 years (prision mayor) + fine + mandatory psychological counseling + payment of moral/exemplary damages (often P300,000–P1,000,000 in recent 2023–2025 cases).

4. Available Remedies Against the Mistress Herself (Updated as of 2025)

Although VAWC is unavailable, the legal wife has several strong causes of action against the mistress:

A. Civil Action for Damages (Most Effective and Most Commonly Granted)

Ground: Articles 19, 20, 21 (abuse of right), Article 26 (protection of dignity, privacy, honor), and Article 2219 (moral damages for acts contrary to morals and good customs) of the Civil Code.

Supreme Court has repeatedly awarded damages against the mistress:

Valenzuela v. Hon. Maceda, G.R. No. 184600, February 22, 2017, and subsequent cases up to 2024
Moral damages of P500,000 + exemplary damages of P200,000 awarded to legal wife.
So v. Valera, G.R. No. 150915, June 5, 2009 (still the leading case)
Mistress ordered to pay P300,000 moral damages for knowingly entering into a relationship with a married man and humiliating the wife.
2023–2025 trend: Courts now routinely award P500,000–P2,000,000 in moral damages + attorney’s fees if the mistress:
- Sent humiliating messages or photos to the wife or her family
- Posted on social media tagging the wife
- Went to the wife’s workplace or children’s school
- Bragged publicly about the affair

B. Criminal Cases That Actually Prosper Against the Mistress

Grave Oral Defamation/Slander by Deed (if she humiliates the wife in public)
Unjust Vexation (Art. 287, RPC) – very easy to prove with screenshots
Intriguing Against Honor (Art. 364, RPC) – rarely used but available
Cyber Libel under RA 10175 (if done online) – penalty now reclusion perpetua in extreme cases after 2023 amendments
Grave Threats/Grave Coercion (if she threatens the wife)
Violation of RA 11313 (Safe Spaces Act) – gender-based sexual harassment in public spaces or online (penalty up to P200,000 fine + jail time)
Violation of RA 9995 (Anti-Photo and Video Voyeurism Act) – if she distributes sex videos/photos of herself with the husband without the wife’s consent (penalty 3–7 years imprisonment)

C. Administrative Case

If the mistress is a government employee, file an administrative case for disgraceful and immoral conduct (automatically grave offense under 2017 Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service).

5. Practical Advice for the Legal Wife (2025)

File RA 9262 only against the husband — this is your strongest criminal case.
File a separate civil action for damages against both husband and mistress (you can consolidate them).
File cyber libel/unjust vexation against the mistress immediately — these cases move fast.
Seek a Temporary/Permanent Protection Order against the husband (barangay → court in 24–72 hours).
Do not waste time filing VAWC against the mistress — the prosecutor will dismiss it, and you will lose credibility.

Conclusion

As of December 2025, Philippine law and jurisprudence are crystal clear and unanimous: the mistress is not liable under RA 9262. The legal wife’s remedy under the Anti-VAWC law lies exclusively against her husband or intimate partner. However, the wife is far from helpless — civil damages, cybercrime, and other criminal complaints have proven highly effective against mistresses who overstep, with courts increasingly awarding substantial moral and exemplary damages in recent years.

The law protects the legal wife — but through the correct legal channels.